"John Knight" <johnknight at usa.com> wrote:
>"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab at lojban.org> wrote in message
>news:q09dlu0gmrne092t15bi5kb34tqc4k75v7 at 4ax.com...>> There are probably a lot of people who are agnostic or who don't care,
>> who are not listed as atheists, and there are probably not a small
>> number who don't believe but are still members of churches. But this
>> hardly seems relevant, since some churches have no problem with gay
>> rights.
>>Oh, really. Do you think the Catholic or Epispocal Church agree with that
>view right now?
Did I name those churches in particular? But a little research and
you wouldn't have asked.
Actually
http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/scotts/bulgarians/church.html
has a discussion of where things stood several years ago. Apparently
the Episcopals were up in the air. They still are but individuals
among the Episcopal leadership are as strongly in favor of gay rights
as any church (see below).
That Catholics were hardly as negative as you are. However the
article notes:
>The United Methodist, Presbyterian U.S.A., Evangelical Lutheran and United Church of Christ denominations, the nations third-, fifth-, sixth-, and tenth-largest Christian groups, all maintain volunteer programs for individual congregations or even regions to endorse acceptance of gays and lesbians.
>United Church of Christ
>The United Church of Christ, the nation's 10th largest denomination, accepted the ordination of sexually active gay men and lesbians in 1980. Its clergy are also allowed to perform commitment ceremonies for gay couples, and several have been performed in the church's Southwest Conference (Arizona, New Mexico and El Paso).
>Evangelical Lutheran
>Evangelical Lutheran churches are semiautonomous, said Frak Imhoff from church headquarters in Chicago, but no national policy bars the ordination of gays and lesbians nor the affirmation of gay relationships.
>However, Lutheran Bishop Herbert W. Chilstrom wrote to President Clinton, "We have a clear set of standards and expectations for all who are ordained. We judge them by their behavior rather than on the basis of their sexual orientation." Chilstrom was urging Clinton to lift the ban against gays in the military.
>>United Methodist
>One church in Tucson, St. Francis in the Foothills United Methodist, has completed that denomination's "Reconciling" process. The acceptance of gays at St. Francis is total, says its pastor, The Rev. David Wilkinson. This also means acceptance is mutual. St Francis has acquired a large gay and lesbian membership.
A typical article among many from the Episcopal Church web site:
http://www.episcopalchurch.org/ens/workshop/2000-035.html
notes one Episcopal Bishop (a woman, BTW) arguing before the Virginia
House in favor of gay marriage. More interesting,
http://www.integrityusa.org/
is the site of an organization of gay Episcopals which appears to be
quite large. Its FAQ says the following about Episcopal policy:
>Where does the Episcopal Church stand on gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender [GLBT] people?
>Like many denominations, the Episcopal Church is still struggling with homosexuality--though we are further ahead than most. Many dioceses and parishes are actively supportive of GLBT folks, a few are actively hostile, and the majority are somewhere in between.
>>General Convention, the triennial legislative body of the Episcopal Church, has passed a number of landmark resolutions regarding gay and lesbian people:
>>In 1976, it said "homosexual persons are children of God and have a full and equal claim with all other persons upon the love, acceptance, and pastoral concern and care of the Church" and "homosexual persons are entitled to equal protection of the laws with all other citizens."
>In 1994, it passed a change to canon law stating, "No person shall be denied rights, status, or an equal place in the life, worship, and governance of this Church because of race, color, ethnic origin, national origin, marital status, sex, sexual orientation, disabilities or age, except as otherwise specified by Canon."
>In 1997, it passed a resolution apologizing "on behalf of the Episcopal Church to its members who are gay or lesbian and to lesbians and gay men outside the Church for years of rejection and maltreatment by the Church."
>The church has so far been silent regarding transgender people.
>For more on the Lutherans:
>http://www.thelutheran.org/0106/page56.html>More recently, the Presbyterians have loosened up:
>http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2001/125/12.0.html
>Garnering the most headlines, of course, is the General Assembly's decision to lift the ban on ordaining gays and lesbians. In a 317-208 vote, the denominational delegates voted to delete language in the PCUSA Book of Order requiring ordained church officers "to live either in fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman, or chastity in singleness." The resolution also called a 1978 "authoritative interpretation" of The Book of Order, which barred "self-affirming, practicing homosexuals" from ordination, to be of "no further force or effect." The proposal must now be approved by a majority of the church's 173 presbyteries, but that's not unlikely—the presbyteries recently voted against a ban on same-sex unions.
Having presented some facts, we return to the nincompoop:
>READ: whether MORONS like you think "some churches have no problem", the
>mere idea of "gay rights" is an abomination before God.
Well, so we have 5 of the 10 largest churches in the US not only
disagreeing with you but taking the opposite point of view.
>> >So, then, how many faggots are there in Canada,
>>>> Does it matter? The question is whether they should have equal
>> rights.
>>And the answer is that they should NOT have, Biblically, logically, legally,
>and by mandate of the MAJORITY public opinion, as expressed in numerous
>referendums which THREW OUT the court orders to let faggots into churches.
Let us see the cites of these "numerous" referenda
>You "daresay"? You also "think" that "some churches have no problem", which
>makes you a moral minor on top of your thousands of other shortcomings.
No, it merely makes me a person who is more aware of reality than you
are, according to the information cited above.
>> Wrong question. The number who practice homosexuality is not the
>> percentage that support the rights of homosexuals.
>>gee.
My God. I caught the nincompoop speechless!!!
>> Some people believe that any minority, no matter how small, deserves
>> equal rights, because otherwise it means nothing to call them
>> "rights".
>>And the MAJORITY have a RIGHT, too, which is to live free of faggots,
>sodomites, kikes, niggers, feminazis, and other muds [read: "liberals"], a
>RIGHT you've never really been able to explain why you "think" should be
>denied to that MAJORITY.
Because that right does not exist. Show me where this right is stated
in the Constitution of any state or country in the world.
>This MAJORITY should also not be required to fund the corruptible
>"lifestyles" of all you "liberals" either, through federal taxation, or by
>any other means.
Well the majority, via their representatives, apparently has done a
lot of things that you disapprove of. They even elected Clinton a few
years ago, and reelected him too. They must not agree with you.
>> (Note that most of these surveys had approximately that 3% error you
>> like to spout off about, yet the actual range of the different samples
>> in more like 15%. And every single one of these polls was
>> professionally done rather than being like your ad hoc internet polls.
>> Shows how little use polls are in proving something.)
>>This is not a statistical error, you MORON. The differences are based on
>different polling methodologies, sample sizes, sample selections,
>geographies, and other BIASED groupings.
I know that. My point is that polls are so inexact because of the
other factors that statistical error seldom becomes relevant.
>You already KNOW that Gallup is a faggot organization which views sodomy as
>a "civil right", which ELIMINATES them as an objective polling house right
>off the bat. But even their airy fairy little polling technique couldn't
>raise acceptance of faggots above 43%, could it?
>>And now we have "Environics" who suddenly sticks through the roof of the
>tent as if though they're some kind of social leader, "observing" that
>opposition to faggotry decreased from 48% to 37% in only 5 years, at the
>same time that airy fairy Gallup says that only 43% "approve".
>>Is this some kind of a breakthrough in amorality, or did Environics just
>find a new and unique way to LIE, lojbab?
Neither. It is "different polling methodologies, sample sizes, sample
selections, geographies, ..." as you put it above.
The point is that the poll numbers are all over the place, but for the
most part approximately equally in favor and opposed. Clearly the
data does not match with your claim that so many hundred million
Christians are opposed, especially when coupled with information about
5 churches that don't agree with you.
lojbab
